Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British possession


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. There doesn’t seem to be any agreement with what to do with this article, and the discussion has descended into name calling and personal attacks, so I think it’s best to draw a line under it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

British possession

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article is a recently created stub, it has the narrow legal definition and has a couple of tangentially related legal cases to bulk out the article. Removing fluff I can't see this article as being anything but a dictionary stub and as such not notable ie it is more suited for Wiktionary see also WP:DICDEF for relevant guidance. Recommend deletion WCM email 14:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

See : British possession means any British colony, Dependent Territory, Overseas Territory or protectorate, any territory under Her Majesty’s protection or any territory in respect of which trusteeship is exercised by Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom; As I said when I nominated for deletion, this is only suitable for a dictionary entry. The term is a blanket term covering various territories, not suitable for an article. The article is being bulked out with tangential references. It seems a lot of comments are made in ignorance of what the term actually means. WCM email 07:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a factually inaccurate statement based on a misleading source. To begin with, British protectorates were not British possessions, they were foreign territory subject to the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts: . British protected states, League of Nations mandates and UN trust territories were not British possessions either. They were foreign territory. The Interpretation Ordinance (No 6 of 1968) of St Helena does not apply to any place outside of the island of St Helena, and relates almost entirely to a period when there were no remaining British protectorates. It is certainly not the normal definition. Please do not cherrypick from the first website you find on the internet. Most websites are trash. I have never even heard of that website. If you are going to cite sources, you need to cite real law books (usually printed or paywalled and very, very, very expensive). They have a great deal to say about this beyond the definition. To take just one example, Roberts-Wray claims that this concept was less frequently used because it was discredited by 1966, because it implied subordination (ie people in these territories did not like this concept). None of that is definition. That is commentary on a political controversy. James500 (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI for any administrator reviewing this AFD, the above comment was refactored after I commented on it below. WCM email 13:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete as it (as the nomination says) seems to be a minor law, that is not even enforced anymore. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the laws providing definitions of "British possession" are in force in numerous jurisdictions. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * All of which are covered by many separate articles, we do not need an article, that looks to be )(almost) just a list of laws that contains the concept, many of which are no longer applicable. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If that were true Wikipedia would not need article on subjects like British subject, British nationality, British dominion, and so on. All of these are covered by many separate articles. Where is the Wikipedia rule that says there can't be articles on subjects that are governed by multiple laws some of which are obsolete and many of which are current? For example, The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021 includes reference to "a relevant British possession". The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I want to jump in here to caution against the use of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; each of those articles can be examined in their own light and stand on their own worthiness. microbiology Marcus (petri dish) 18:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose deletion of the in-progress article. The concept of a British possession is not, as the nominator claims, "narrow", it is rather, extremely broad, a fact reliably cited in the article. Historically, the concept has been the legal foundation of the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, the basis for the evolution of British subjecthood and British nationality law, the statutory foundation for the pound sterling as a globe-spanning currency union, and the legal foundation for extradition procedures within the British Empire and Commonwealth. Today, it remains a legally recognized concept not only in the United Kingdom, but also in various Commonwealth realms and Commonwealth republics, and an important part of British maritime law. Historically, various definitions have been used, and even today there are multiple competing definitions of legal relevance. Suggesting the article's deletion before it is even nearly complete seems wholly misplaced and is certainly premature. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Some words of advice, if you vociferously defend your article as you did at Talk:British Empire then you're likely to influence the decision toward deletion. Your repeated excuse the article isn't finished doesn't wash, it can never be more than a stub and you've spam linked it to hundreds of articles.  WCM email 15:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not spam linked anything. Your claim that "it can never be more than a stub" is simply wrong. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your talk page history clearly suggests differently. I see you have no intention of following good advice. Bon chance. WCM email 15:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As can be seen from that link, there is no substance to the accusation. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Slavery was outlawed 30 years before any of these laws applied. This begins to look a but synthy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Lets not bludgeon this RFC and let others have their say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 23.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 15:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep for the time being. This is actually a subject of enormous historical relevance. My main worry was that it might be a content fork of material found elsewhere (e.g. English overseas possessions or British Overseas Territories or British Empire) but it doesn't seem to be. This is globe-spanning fall-out of the gradual collapse of one of the largest law-spreading empires that ever existed, which has had ongoing consequences for many countries and people since the end of the second world war. It's about as far from minor as a legal situation can get. It is also perhaps not the best idea to nominate an article for deletion only two days after its creation, when it is obviously still in the process of being written. While draft space is the ideal environment to incubate a new article, there is no obligation to do so, nor must articles in main-space be complete (in fact, there is no such thing as completion in WP). Let's give this article some time to see what it develops into. Elemimele (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. This topic has received significant coverage in many books and periodical articles. British possessions are a group of territories. One can speak of the British possessions. There are, and were, many laws that extend to every British possession or to any British possession. One can speak of the law or laws of (the) British possessions. The British possessions are presumably a legally recognized populated administrative region within the meaning of GEOLAND. James500 (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Presumably" - feel free to point to one. I'll wait.  WCM email 19:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have struck the word "presumably". All I meant by that word was "if my understanding of consensus about the interpretation of GEOLAND is correct". James500 (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to point to one...I'm still waiting. WCM email 07:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Wee Curry Monster, I looked up WP:GEOLAND, and it seems to me that the collective British possessions are a "Populated, legally recognized place". Certainly, each is, and they corporately are, a legally recognized geographic entity. In the case of Godwin v. Walker in New Zealand in 1938, the judge, having cited the entry "British possession" in Words and Phrases Legally Defined, said "I have no doubt from this definition of "British Possession" (see Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, s. 39) that this expression is used in the statute as descriptive of a geographical area …". (See: International Law Reports, Volume 23, 1960, pp. 284–295.) The area may have changed since then, but this fact remains. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Really, so it'll be possible to define what this place is then. Go on, I'm waiting. WCM email 00:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As you said "It seems a lot of comments are made in ignorance of what the term actually means". I would have thought reading the article and understanding its content a prerequisite for nominating it for deletion. Read the article and wait no longer. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable enough. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment A notice of this discussion was placed at Talk:British Empire. Unfortunately, that thread has nothing whatsoever to do with the article British Empire and contains a lot of negative conmmentary on this start class article, including from the nominator. I do not think, for example, that a comment like this satisfies WP:APPNOTE which says "Notifications must be . . . neutrally worded", meaning that notifications must contain absolutely no criticism whatsoever. James500 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * British Empire was just one of literally hundreds of articles linkspammed to this stub. The discussion there was characterised by bludgeoning from the author of this article. You might have had a point if the diff you linked to was the discussion notification but it wasn't this was. I don't expect an apology for misrepresenting my comment, which was neutrally worded but I consider my comment in the discussion was perfectly reasonable given the conduct of the author.  I'll end by thanking you for encouraging the author to continue behaving as he did.  WCM email 19:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The words "I . . . will shortly be nominating for deletion" are a notification. Linkspam is objectionable, but it is a grounds for removing links, and is not a grounds for deleting an article on a notable topic. James500 (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, it wasn't. Thanks for confirming my prediction and doubling down on a pointless accusation. And again thank you for encouraging disruptive behaviour.  You have a nice day now. WCM email 07:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: Some odd mix of SYNTH, with laws from the 1600s and as recent as 1978. This is amply covered in the various articles on the British Empire and subsequent colonies/protectorates/what-have-you. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The chapter on the concept of a "British possession" in Roberts-Wray indicates that this topic is not an original synthesis. The article does not mention any legislation from before the 1860s. All of the legislation is about the same concept. The coverage of this topic in other articles is not remotely adequate. In fact, it appears to be virtually non-existent. Even this article is missing a great deal. James500 (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You can read Roberts-Wray here . From my brief read of it,(p37), it seems to have been defined in order to unite certain 'colonies', eg Canada post 1867, whereby each province under a central legislative body (ie Ottawa) was not a separate British colony. Ditto for Australia in 1901. India was excluded for reasons I am not sure about. The article says at the end it is an expression rarely used (in 1966) because it could cause offence. My view that the term is not notable enough still stands. Sorry if this is not the place to discuss this but I'm not sure wherelse to go. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For one example, many constitutions and laws were made under British Settlements Acts, by virtue of the fact that the territory in question was a "British possession" that satisfied certain criteria. There is a large body of literature on this topic, and this article is the only one that presently even begins to discuss, or could discuss, this topic of immense constitutional importance. James500 (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, Roberts-Wray says (p 39) that British India, and subsequently the Dominion of India, were British possessions under the Interpretation Act 1889, and this was not affected under the law of the UK when those countries became republics. India was not excluded from being a British possession merely because it was not a colony. James500 (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Roger 8 Roger @James500: Roberts-Wray (on page 38, the one page apparently read by Roger 8 Roger) is quoting the definition of the Vice Admiralty Courts Act 1863, which for its purposes excluded the British possessions in India, as they had been called since Pitt's India Act ("An Act for the better Regulation and Management of the Affairs of the East India Company and of the British Possessions in India"). Had Roger 8 Roger enquired further, even on the same page of Roberts-Wray, it might have been made clear that India is expressly and explicitly included in the definition of a "British Colony and Possession" by the Documentary Evidence Act 1868. ("British Colony and Possession" shall for the Purposes of this Act include … such Territories as may for the Time being be vested in Her Majesty by virtue of any Act of Parliament for the Government of India…") This Roberts-Wray states plainly on page 39. Incidentally, J. N. Saxena disagrees with Roberts-Wray on whether India continued to be a British possession (at least in terms of Indian law) - he thought India ceased to be a British possession on the establishment of the republican constitution in January 1950. In the 2018 edition of Cross and Tapper On Evidence, a footnote on page 700  states "Quaere whether this statute still applies to all Commonwealth countries". All colonies are possessions but not all possessions are colonies, at least since the mid-19th century, at which time a legal distinction was increasingly, though never uniformly, observed between different types of British possession. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've noticed this tendency in Wikipedia, whereby people who make a mistake, don't apologise for it but double down. Google snippets is a very dangerous tool to use.  Had you been more thorough you'd have found this for example .  The fact is British possession is a simple legal term, a definition suitable for something like wiktionary for example.  You could summarise the term as:

British possession means any British colony, Dependent Territory, Overseas Territory or protectorate, any territory under Her Majesty’s protection or any territory in respect of which trusteeship is exercised by Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom
 * And that would be it. WCM email 07:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not use snippet view, I used the scan internet archive. (I also looked at a large number of other books on both the Internet Archive and Google Books). I did not link to the internet archive, because I was frightened that what Roberts-Wray said in his book might be twisted into exactly the sort of freeman on the land style pseudolaw wrong information that I am seeing in the quote from the website you are linking to. (I have explained why that quote is wrong further up this page).
 * I have noticed there is a tendency on this website to make personal attacks that consist of false claims that someone has done, or failed to do, some act off-wiki. Because it is very easy to get away with making false accusation personal attacks about off-wiki activities that are not recorded by this website. James500 (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You started off this conversation with a silly personal attack and the misleading use of diffs to do so. Its also quite obvious you used snippets. The post hoc fallacy and further bizarre accusations that a law dictionary site is a sovereign citizens resource is just so beyond belief that you've finally shredded any credibility you might once have had.  Feel free to have the WP:LASTWORD I can't be bothered to reply further. WCM email 11:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is perfectly plausible that I am not inclined to encourage non-lawyers to read law books. And, yes, there is a scan of The British Year Book of International Law 1949 in the Internet Archive, I have read the full text of Fawcett's article in that book (and I won't say which scan or hard copy I used), and I am still not going to link to that scan, partly because I don't want to encourage you to read it, and partly because I do not have time to determine if the scan is public domain for non-renewal etc. James500 (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Bizarre, you claim to have sources but don't wish to provide any, I note its quite some time since I invited you to provide just one example. Utterly bizarre that you're still doubling down when a simple sorry I goofed and the matter would have been closed. Oh well. WCM email 12:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I did just provide you with this and I did provide you with Roberts-Wray. And I don't want to encourage you to make any edits in relation to this topic at all, because I don't want to see an obscure piece of legislation from the tiny and not particularly important island of St Helena cherrypicked, quoted out of context in a way that is completely misleading, and then misrepresented as the only thing that can be said about this topic, which it is not. Or similar mistakes. James500 (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, another google snippet page, after I pointed out the folly of using snippets. As Roger pointed out, if you look at the archive copy of Roberts-Wray it doesn't back the claim you made for it.  And yet another personal attack, very stylish.  I always love the ad hominem school of argument but surely it would just be better to stop digging?  The fact remains that this term has very little meaning and whilst suitable for a wiktionary entry not for a full-blown article.  I note I'm still waiting for one of these myriad of examples you claim prove your case.  Just one. WCM email 13:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Roberts-Wray does indicate that this topic is not an original synthesis, which is the claim that I made for Roberts-Wray. Roger 8 Roger did not claim that this topic is an original synthesis. And now you are misrepresenting Roberts-Wray, and what I said, and what Roger 8 Roger said. It is obvious that you are misrepresenting things on purpose, with intent to obtain gratification from causing annoyance to others. I am no longer prepared to interact with you. Goodbye. James500 (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, if anyone I am still on speaking terms with is interested, I had another look at the Internet Archive and found a second scan of Fawcett that I am satisfied is CDL (from the Trent University donation), and it confirms that British protectorates, British protected states and UN trust territories were generally not considered to be British possessions, which is what I said it confirmed. For the further avoidance of doubt, some British possessions, such as British India, were not colonies: . James500 (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say he did, that's your strawman. My point from the outset has been that this article by its very nature can't be more than a dictionary term.  The term British possession doesn't correspond to WP:GEOLAND as you claimed.  The first reference to it in legislation dates from 1889 for example.  You'll also find as a vaguely defined term, some authors will included certain types of former British territories such as mandates, others will exclude them and in any case as Roberts-Wray alludes to, the term became obsolete long ago.  But this has been educational for me, for the bizarre leaps of logic people will adopt just to avoid saying sorry.  Gibbs may see an apology as a sign of weakness, the opposite is true.
 * It'll also come as a surprise to many that India isn't a former British colony granted independence in 1947...
 * Oh and I'm deeply, deeply upset over your further personal attack but I'll get over it. And FYI I obtain gratification from the collaborative effort of producing a quality encyclopedia, I don't suffer fools who wish to detract from the quality of the product because their ego got bruised. WCM email 14:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Before I forget, still waiting for example pertinent to WP:GEOLAND, lost count of the number of times I asked. WCM email 14:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt only, the earliest reference to British possessions in legislation that we have found so far (the Vice Admiralty Courts Act 1863) dates from 1863, not 1889. James500 (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is an important legal concept, distinct from others mentioned. Llajwa (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You know what, if you can show I'm wrong and this is a suitable topic for an article, I'll withdraw the nomination. Please show me how this is suitable for anything beyond a wiktionary entry. WCM email 07:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Observation: I participate in many AfDs. In contrast to most of the others, this is an unpleasant discussion.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @User:A. B.: I am going to withdraw from this discussion altogether. James500 (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Appears to be a WP:DICDEF of a disused technical term being presented as something far more significant.  There are lots of sources, sure - but most of them seem to be primary sources.  In particular, large parts of the article seem to be solely or primarily sourced to the text of legislation.  I'd further infer that the fact that legislators felt the need to define the term separately in so many different pieces of legislation rather implies that - contrary to the article - it was not necessarily a well-known or well-used term, and it certainly wasn't a defined administrative division of the British Empire as argued above. Kahastok talk 17:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Kahastok Firstly, no part of the article is solely or even primarily sourced to the text of legislation. All of the article (excepting some of the quotations of the legislation themselves) is derived from secondary or tertiary sources. While there are conflicting definitions, these mostly date from before the 1889 act, which sought to give a unified definition to the term. Since then, the definition has been quite stable. Secondly, the concept is emphatically not disused. Its application is more limited than it was in the imperial period, but it is still very much an active legal notion. Thirdly, looking at the link you supplied, the example "Article subjects: a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. The article octopus is primarily about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth" might be mirrored here: "the article British possession is primarily about a legal concept, its history, its application, its use as a basis of other legislation, its territorial jurisdiction, and so forth." Dictionary definitions are about single words and phrases, but this article is about a defined group of countries and territories which share specific political and historical characteristics. An exact equivalent article on Wikipedia is "British Islands", a juridical and legislative division of the (former) British Empire whose meaning also varied through the course of the 19th century and which is now fixed by precisely the same laws as the British possessions (namely, the Interpretation Act 1889 and the Interpretation Act 1978). The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The term 'British Possessions' means land under British control. That is its common meaning and is so obvious we do not have to elaborate. When used in legislation it did have to be defined exactly to avoid confusion within a growing and variably empire. That is also obvious in the context of legal documents. That is why most acts of parliament have a section on definitions, and in some cases one act on definitions is created to cover all other acts. This proposed article is all about the legal definition of 'British Possessions'. It is not notable enough IMO. It might crop up as a topic for discussion in a text book on the law or in a judge's case summary, but that is not notable enough. What next? Do we have articles on other legal definitions of common terms? I am aware of a series of legal claims regarding contracts in which a very important point was the difference between something being 'new' or 'as new'. In some contracts and statutes the precise meanings were not defined and they were used interchangeably, or if they were defined, different documents contradicted each other. That is an example of where the meaning of a word or phrase has to be defined, but that is totally separate from its common usage meaning. If this article is to go through I think the title should be changed by adding (in law) at the end, or something similar. And, BTW, about the remarks higher up, I had read Roberts-Wray in full, not just p37 but I had only briefly read it as I indicated. I appreciate the elaboration given. My main concern was to find it somewhere that was more accessible to others, hence the link I gave. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You say "The term 'British Possessions' means land under British control" but that's not immediately obvious and it differs from the definition in law. "Possessions" does not automatically mean "land", "British" does not automatically mean "relating to the government of the UK", and in fact the British possessions are not under the control of the British government anyway, since they are mostly self-governing, or are even independent states. You ask "Do we have articles on other legal definitions of common terms?" and I have already answered "Yes: there is the "British Islands" article. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412  T 23:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. A well-sourced article about the evolution of an important and widely discussed legal concept. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: The topic is notable. It is verifiable, indeed, it is verified. It is far greater in scope than a WP:DICDEF. If it contains WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH then the community is perfectly capable of handing the matter. There are some difficulties with the sourcing. The lead contains WP:CITEKILL whcih requires correction, for example, but as we say often, AfD is not cleanup. I believe the any issues with this are susceptible to salvage by the community, that this passes WP:GNG, is likely to require collegial editing, and is, apart from being notable, both useful and important (which I agree are not Wikipedia policy items). 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Of the 60 or so references around half are acts, not RSSs. Most, if not all of the rest are text books or subject specific works. A lot of these sources contain mere snippets where the term 'british possession' is mentioned. Even if the citation bombast is tidied up, this won't change the fact that the term is heavily subject specific. I could not find any examples where the term, as meant here, is used outside the legal community. Because it has a very commonly used non-legal meaning, if this article is to stay I think it should be treated as meeting WP:SNG and have it's title amended accordingly to British Possession (law). BTW, we should not view this article as being well sourced just because there are 60 plus citations. As said, most of those sources don't stack up as RSSs under closer examination. Just because somebody shouts loud enough doesn't mean we should believe what they say. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep This is an important legal concept, not a niche topic, and has had real-life relevance throughout the commonwealth. For example, the concept affects the family histories of Chinese descent whose descendants born in areas under British administration (as noted in the article).
 * I have added a small section, with law review citation, dealing with the decision of the Privy Council in Christian v The Queen. British possession status of the Pitcairns was at the core of that decision. The cited article examines the British possession concept at some length and should be considered significant coverage. The Kennedy article also is single-subject and seems worthy of being considered significant coverage for notability.
 * The article definitely needs a cleanup, but it's been greatly expanded since nomination. As a general comment, the statute-by-statute presentation may have relevant content but it's hard to see based on how it's presented. However, this is not a grounds for deletion.
 * While I have tried to consider arguments made above, I freely admit to a high degree of TL;DR as a result of the tone of the discussion. I'm focusing on the article as it stands and the Oblivy (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.